All groups need a certain amount of co-ordination, if any collective action is going to take place. Even simple things like agreeing when and where to meet friends, are basic forms of co-ordination. When organising something more consequential, it becomes even more important for people to work together as a coherent whole.

While co-ordination is always necessary, it often comes at the expense of flexibility and individual freedom. The simplest way to get a large, complex project done is through hierarchy. Put one person in charge, appoint some deputies, and you have a chain of command. Orders flow down, and information flows up. This can work, but typically leaves the people at the bottom unable to implement their own ideas, or push back on bad ideas that are passed down through the chain of command.

Decentralised co-ordination mechanisms like Forum work differently. They start from the premise that while everyone has something to contribute to a project, nobody has all of the wisdom or knowledge to pull it off single-handed. Instead, the necessary information comes from integrating people’s diverse perspectives, through a fully anonymous voting mechanism.

Anonymity is key; it reduces the impact of groupthink, and frees people to express how they really think and feel, without having to worry about repercussions for holding an unpopular opinion. The same goes for radical propositions. Most radical propositions aren’t useful, but most breakthroughs come from thinking way outside the box. This is made easier by an anonymous and decentralised voting mechanism, because anyone can anonymously propose unorthodox ideas, without fear of ridicule or judgement.

As explained in the “Wisdom of Crowds” article, the combined beliefs of many non-experts is often surprisingly effective at coming up with good solutions. This wisdom applies to co-ordination; to finding a set of decisions that serve the group’s interests optimally.

Let’s look at a concrete example. Say you and your work colleagues are going out for dinner. If there were only 3-4 of you, it’d probably be easier to just discuss where to go and come to a decision. But even with this approach, it takes time to figure out who wants what, and how much they like or dislike each option. With a larger group, the time needed to reach even an adequate solution grows rapidly, and the odds of everyone being satisfied are much lower.

To solve this problem with Forum, you’d either create a standalone poll, or add a new poll to your workplace group. After a brief initial discussion, you put up 6 options for restaurants, and let people vote. If 6 people mildly like pizza, but 2 are severely gluten intolerant, this option will be pushed down the rankings, which wouldn’t have happened under a simple majority vote. Options that some people like and others dislike will get relatively few net votes, whereas those that enjoy modest general support will end up with the most votes.

The same methodology applies to political or business decisions. The current way most businesses work, is that decisions are only made after a long and arduous process of internal consultation. Many hours of meetings are had, files created and shared and edited, until the people with the most influence put together a reasonable-sounding idea and push it through. Needless to say, this is not ideal.

With a Forum group for your team, things run much quicker and smoother. A range of strategies are proposed, and after a limited time in which to explain the merits of each one, people are free to cast votes for/against each of the options. The most popular one is finalised as the strategy to go ahead with. Next, different ways to implement the chosen strategy could be proposed, and votes taken on these.

This iterative strategy of stakeholder engagement is far quicker than hierarchy or bureaucracy at making decisions. It integrates people’s thoughts and feelings in a much more sophisticated way than other systems, allowing effective co-ordination without sacrificing any democratic principles.